If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

What if there is no god?

I'm not interested in debating religion. I was raised Christian and still cling loosely to those beliefs, although I constantly question my beliefs and consider various alternatives. One obvious alternative is that there is no god whatsoever, so I want to run with that one for a second, and discuss the implications of that scenario.

Let’s just say we exist because the big bang occurred, resulting in a sun and planet with conditions that are favorable for life. A primordial soup formed amino acids, leading to proteins and eventually, organized life. We then evolved as a result of natural selection. Okay, that’s the gist of it at least. (Again, we don’t need to argue any of this here. I believe most of this as well, but that’s not the point.)

So what are we? If there is no god, and man was not created by a higher being for a specific purpose, then what does that make us? It seems to me that we are merely a collection of molecules and proteins that have developed mobility, cognitive function, and the ability to reproduce to form similar collections.

Bacteria move, and bacteria reproduce, so let’s set those characteristics on the back burner and focus on our cognition. That’s supposedly what makes us different. What exactly does it all boil down to? What is it that makes us who we are?

Our brains are a network of neurons and electrical impulses that somehow function to form thoughts, emotions, and memories. The most important part of who I am is basically a huge microprocessor. It’s a microprocessor far more advanced than anything we are capable of manufacturing with today’s technology, but the basic principle is the same. The things that make me happy activate one series of neurons, while the things that piss me off activate a different set of neurons. Regardless of the trigger or the outcome, a collection of ions is flowing down a series of axons and forming synapses.

Taken a step further, my relationships with my wife, family, and friends are merely interactions between two bodies that house these neurons. My electrical impulses are somehow compatible with my wife’s impulses, which interact with each other via light waves, sound waves, molecules that trigger olfactory sensors, and mechanoreceptors in the skin. These are all directly connected to neurons that tie back into the brain, so in effect, ions in motion. How is this different from any other electrical current? What makes the electrical current within my body any more or less important than friction or lightning? It seems rather pointless when you consider it from this angle.

Furthermore, is there any moral right and wrong in this universe? Without a higher authority to determine good from evil, how can either truly exist? If someone steals something, the only thing that really happened is that their molecules used their cognition and mobility to move an object (another collection of molecules) through space. How can that action be right or wrong? It seems no different from a rockslide, a wave on the ocean, or wind.

If one person kills another person, what basically happened is that their body ended the electrical impulses within another body. One set of molecules put a stop to another set of molecules, but that would eventually happen anyways. All of the molecules would eventually return to the earth and be used to form something completely different later in time. What determines that this activity is wrong, whereas other activities are right?

What argument can be made that killing a human is somehow worse than killing any other living creature? Humans evolved higher cognitive function, but does that make us “better” than dogs or rodents? Without a god to dictate moral right and wrong, I think absolutely not. There’s no logic behind saying that a human killing a cow for food is normal, but a human killing another human is unacceptable. Either way, it goes back to one set of electrical impulses exerting an action on another, which results in cessation of the latter. That’s a seemingly benign event, regardless of the species involved.

It seems that some god or authority figure is required to dictate the moral laws of the universe. If we assume there is no god, which I’m doing in this thread at least, then all concepts of “right” and “wrong” seem to fall apart. There is no reason for either.

If we look back at that primordial soup, before any amino acids formed and certainly before the first living creature existed, earth was a giant collection of unorganized molecules. Did the concept of morality exist then? How could it? That's like saying there are morals on Mars and certain piles of dust are better or worse than others. If there was no good or evil back then, at what point did this suddenly become relevant?

I’m not using this thread to suggest God exists by pointing out flaws in the alternative. There is ulterior motive at play here. I’m just musing at how pointless everything seems when you take god out of the equation. The lie, if you can even call it that, is that we’ve convinced ourselves there is a point to any of this. The even bigger lie is that there is no lie. Wait, what?

I know this got really long and I'll be lucky to get 5 responses, but thanks in advance to those 5 people.

tl;dr version:
-Assume there is no god and we exist by chance.
-What the hell does that make us? A collection of molecules or something more?-How can the concepts of right and wrong exist without a higher authority to govern them?

Why would come to that conclusion? If there is no god you will cease to exist when you die and will have no idea if there is a god or not.

When I cease to exist I'll know that there wasn't a God. That's actually pretty hard to comprehend, just simply not existing anymore. I guess I wouldn't even be self-aware so there wouldn't be any way of knowing. You know what $#@! this thread my mind is about to explode and there has only been 10 responses.

It seems that some god or authority figure is required to dictate the moral laws of the universe. If we assume there is no god, which I’m doing in this thread at least, then all concepts of “right” and “wrong” seem to fall apart. There is no reason for either.

Excellent, show us where the God who dictates morality or 'right and wrong' is located in the following:

I don't see anything "right" about those pictures which tells me if there is a God then he doesn't really give a $#@! about morality or right from wrong. Visit a developing country if you think there are any "moral laws" in this universe.

First, as an aside, I struggle with this very question and implication all the time. I'm very moral relative (if you have never read any of my posts or don't know me) and subscribe to the "there is no right or wrong" that you mentioned. Morality, like known religion and concepts of God, in my world is created uniquely by each individual.

However, what you have essentially done is interpolate, through Man's known anatomical and biochemistry study, the quintessential problem, confusion and agony of Mankind which is, "What is the meaning of life- why do we exist?"

We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here. We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?

And morality

It would be deeply depressing if the only way children could get moral values was from religion. Either from scripture, and God knows we don't want them to get it from scripture, I mean, just look at scripture. Or, from being afraid of God, being intimidated by God. Anybody who is good for only those two reasons is not really being good at all. Why not teach children things like the Golden Rule, do as you would be done by, how would you like it if other children did that to you, so why do you do it to them... I think it's depressing that anybody should suggest that you actually need God in order to be moral. I would hope that our morals come from a better source than that, and therefore they are genuinely moral rather than based on outmoded scripture, or based on fear.

I don't see anything "right" about those pictures which tells me if there is a God then he doesn't really give a $#@! about morality or right from wrong. Visit a developing country if you think there are any "moral laws" in this universe.

I think you're missing my point, or maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. I'm assuming there is no god, in which case, I'm not sure people in 3rd world countries have it any worse than we do. To be fair, I'm not sure Tom Brady has it any better than we do. It's just a giant spectrum of nothing.

People in 3rd world countries are a collection molecules. I am a different collection of molecules. Tom Brady is a different collection of a molecules that gets to $#@! Giselle. In the end though, we're all basically the same and we will all exist for a brief second of time and then cease to exist. None of us really have it any better or worse than anyone else because we all come from the same place and end up in the same place. Given enough time, our particles may even mix.

What if God exists, but he just doesn't care about Earth or what happens on it because we are so insignificant in his eye? If he cared the world wouldn't be the way it is. I don't think he listens to or answers any prayers and I don't think he forces his hand into earthly matters. I think he just started it all and then when the ball got rolling he moved on to bigger things.

I absolutely do not believe it is possible to be righteous or just without God. Nor do I believe morality comes from any source but God. People say that they don't need religion to know right from wrong. Yes, I agree that we don't need any man-made institutions to tell us what is right or wrong, as all man are inherently sinful, but without God as the source of righteousness, then there would be no such thing. It would be a bunch of arbitrary decisions based off our own survival needs.

I could buy that as a possible explanation. Are we saying our own group is the human race?

What about all the religious or racial tension in the world? One could argue that each of those groups are looking out for their own group, which may not include you or me. Does that make them good?

I suppose we're drawing the line at the species level, but that seems a little arbitrary and all too convenient.

group identity is defined in many ways. Are you an American? Are you a Texan? Do you really give a $#@! if 2000 black NOLA people drown, do you care more if 5 people are killed in your own suburb by a flood? We protect our own, our morality is contrived to protect ourselves given our dependency on each other. The further away the dependency, the less the level of kinship, the less we give a damn.

Hiroshima - how many Japs think that was EVIL? How many Americans think that was good?

What if God exists, but he just doesn't care about Earth or what happens on it because we are so insignificant in his eye? If he cared the world wouldn't be the way it is. I don't think he listens to or answers any prayers and I don't think he forces his hand into earthly matters. I think he just started it all and then when the ball got rolling he moved on to bigger things.

I absolutely do not believe it is possible to be righteous or just without God. Nor do I believe morality comes from any source but God. People say that they don't need religion to know right from wrong. Yes, I agree that we don't need any man-made institutions to tell us what is right or wrong, as all man are inherently sinful, but without God as the source of righteousness, then there would be no such thing. It would be a bunch of arbitrary decisions based off our own survival needs.

Which God are you referring to? The God that commanded Joshua to conquer the land of Canaan and exterminate every living thing? Or the one that inspired a bunch of pissed off Saudis to fly some planes into the WTC?

group identity is defined in many ways. Are you an American? Are you a Texan? Do you really give a $#@! if 2000 black NOLA people drown, do you care more if 5 people are killed in your own suburb by a flood? We protect our own, our morality is contrived to protect ourselves given our dependency on each other. The further away the dependency, the less the level of kinship, the less we give a damn.

Hiroshima - how many Japs think that was EVIL? How many Americans think that was good?

I think you're missing my point, or maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. I'm assuming there is no god, in which case, I'm not sure people in 3rd world countries have it any worse than we do. To be fair

I was responding exclusively to your post I highlighted, not the entire OP. The post clearly stated a God is required to dictate the moral laws of the universe. I know the entire post was a hypothetical which is why I was specifically responding to that part, there were numerous questions in the OP.

Originally Posted by wild_turkey

None of us really have it any better or worse than anyone else because we all come from the same place and end up in the same place. Given enough time, our particles may even mix.

We all come from the same place and go to the same place but our quality of life and standard of living is vastly different. Is it not? How can you say none of us have it better or worse? The absence of a God does not eliminate differences in the quality of life people have across the world.

Which God are you referring to? The God that commanded Joshua to conquer the land of Canaan and exterminate every living thing? Or the one that inspired a bunch of pissed off Saudis to fly some planes into the WTC?

The God that commanded Joshua to conquer the land of Canaan and exterminate every living thing.

There's hypocrisy in every belief system....ain't no way around it...depends on how willing/accepting you are of that hypocrisy and how you are able to adapt and justify and overlap that hypocrisy within your own life....humanity you know..deal with it..

There's hypocrisy in every belief system....ain't no way around it...depends on how willing/accepting you are of that hypocrisy and how you are able to adapt and justify and overlap that hypocrisy within your own life....humanity you know..deal with it..

(attempting daily to be a righteous person and win the day)

Completely disagree (in theory)- one can believe in a belief system without hypocrisy if the backbone of said belief system is integrity (which is why I'm an Absurdist).

Completely agree (in practice)- the human condition is nothing if not imperfect and flawed.

In my opinion, if there was a god, we would know and it wouldn't have anything to do with something as flimsy as faith. Picture god up there saying, "Yeah, $#@!s...I put you there to spend your lives trying to figure out if I exist or not. Go ahead and kill each other trying to figure me out because I'm not going to let you know the truth." That just doesn't seem to be all that cool.

There is no god. Why is god even a concept? It's such a freaking stupid premise anyway when you think about it. And even if there is a god, does anybody think he/she/it is even remotely close to what you've been taught by people? Needle in an infinite haystack, folks. Do good by your fellow man and raise your kids to not be $#@!s. That's all the universe requires of you.

We all come from the same place and go to the same place but our quality of life and standard of living is vastly different. Is it not? How can you say none of us have it better or worse? The absence of a God does not eliminate differences in the quality of life people have across the world.

At one point, all the matter in the universe was in the same spot, more or less. A very small percentage of those particles ended up forming our planet. At that point in time, can we agree that none of those particles had it any better or worse than any other particles?

Fast forward 4 billion years (or whatever) and a very very small percentage of those particles now compose a poor orphan child in a 3rd world country. Another very very small percentage of particles compose you or me. Are we saying that these particles have suddenly found themselves in circumstances that are classified as better or worse?

Fast forward 4 billion years (or whatever) and a very very small percentage of those particles now compose a poor orphan child in a 3rd world country. Another very very small percentage of particles compose you or me. Are we saying that these particles have suddenly found themselves in circumstances that are classified as better or worse?

These particles compose of a human life, you and me. Some people live in an environment where resources to maintain a healthy human life are easier to obtain compared to others. Therefore said person has a "better" life than that orphan child, his survival needs have been met while that orphan child is struggling to survive. So your statement of "no one has it better or worse" is completely flawed. In other words, every human has basics needs for survival but not every human has "equal" access to those basic needs.

"god" is a man made crutch created by the powerful to control the weak (and pretty damn successful at it). It's baffling to me how people can be so educated and reasonable in every day like but fail to continue this reason when it comes to their "religion". An otherwise sane person will put faith in a bunch of fairy tales that are no more realistic than the jolly green giant.